 |
| Figure 1: Teeth of the Homo luzonensis species. |
In April of this year the biological/physical anthropology
community was abuzz with big news coming out of the Philippines. This news took the form of seven teeth, a
couple of finger and toe bones, and a fragmentary leg bone, all of which a team
led by Florent Détroit, a paleoanthropologist at the National Museum of Natural
History in Paris, claim is evidence of a new species of hominid. They dubbed the discovery Homo luzonensis, naming the species
after its island of discovery. While
this discovery is not without some controversy (which will be discussed) it
does provide new evidence that seeks to foster new avenues of research into who
and what makes us human.
The scant remains of Homo
luzonensis cannot provide us a lot of information, but what they do
demonstrates that this species retained several primitive and primate-like
features, such as the ability to live in and climb trees (based on the
curvature of the finger and toe bones) and multi-rooted teeth (Figure 1).
While an exact height is unable to be determined at present it is
hypothesized that they were smaller, much like their neighbor species, Homo
floresiensis (referred to as the “Hobbits”). Lead
researcher Florent Détroit believes that Homo luzonensis was a descendant population from earlier Homo
erectus that may have populated the island.
And this is where the controversy about this species is partially
rooted. It was previously believe that
Homo erectus species, who did leave Africa and populated the Asian continent,
were unable to populate the South Pacific Islands because they lacked the
ability and intellectual capacity to create boats. These islands were inaccessible by land
bridge, so many scholars believed that the islands would therefore have no
evidence of hominid occupations. Of
course, the discovery of Homo floresiensis changed that, which led Détroit and
his team to investigate the island of Luzon further. Now it appears that Homo erectus species did arrive on the island, either through
swimming or rafting.
This also sets the date for when Homo erectus left Africa to much earlier than originally
believed. The Homo luzonensis specimens date to approximately 50,000 years ago,
but Détroit and his team hypothesize that the hominid occupation of the island
may have occurred as early as 700,000 years ago. (SAY WHAT?!)
They make these claims based on evidence of a butchered rhinoceros which
dates to this time. If this claim is
correct then a reanalysis of the peopling of the Old World would need to be
done, further shaking
up the debate about human origins.
There are some scholars, however, who remain unconvinced
that the remains found on Luzon warrant another species classification. They state that given the recent discovery of
human-Neanderthal
hybrids and other species hybrids that these remains could be indicative of
such a hybrid of yet to be discovered hominid species (or already discovered
but not quite classified). This debate
would be settled through DNA testing, but as of yet no DNA has been
successfully extracted from the Luzon fossils.
Until such time this species will only temporarily be considered that: a
new species. Regardless this discovery
provides new and greater insights into our human origins and what exactly it
means to be human.
Works Cited
Bower, B. (2019, April 10). A new hominid species has
been found in a Philippine cave, fossils suggest. Science News.
Fleming, N. (2019, April 10). Unknown human relative
discovered in Philippine cave. Nature.
Greshko, M., & Wei-Haas, M. (2019, April 10). New
species of ancient human discovered in the Philippines. National Geographic.
4 comments:
The fact that such controversy from legitimate bones discovered is crazy to me, but I understand that it's a question of is it a new species or not. My opinion is that it probably isn't a new species, but more of a hybrid like mentioned in the last paragraph. But again, it's so cool that we're still finding bones that old in today's world.
- Chyann Taylor
Still finding bones from way back is interesting. I understand why there is debate because you could never be to sure on what you are finding. The picture makes it look like teeth but then again it looks nasty. -castrele hoy
Love anything about human origins it’s such a mystery, a toss up. I wonder why is that anyone who finds or has significant information or did sings stand so strongly on it when it comes to things like this. Do they ever compare remains found with that of living culture that are said to have and still remain within their original traditions, beliefs etc. for instance the Dogon people and others who are believed or proven the eldest persons/tribes? How do those things measure up? It’s interesting that there is a constant immediate drawing to being primates/apes at some point. I say this because I’ve read some things that say boats or means of travel by water were tangible some time ago. None the less didn’t know they had found such defining parts in one area that’s very rare let alone anything full.
Side note: how’d they know the rhino was butchered specifically? -Jesse Logan
Jesse, as discussed several times in class anthropology is a holistic discipline because anthropologists draw upon more than one subfield (if not all of them) to better understand what it means to be human, which takes place through individual studies such as this one. Also, as discussed in class, various foraging groups are studied as ethnographic analogies into the past, for both humans and hominid species. While I do not know to what extent ethnographic analogy was used for this discovery it has been used for other studies. Regarding the butchery marks on bones anthropologists can and do compare the specific marks on bones to determine if they were made by human or animal, and from there what type of human tool may have been used.
Post a Comment